Calibration Uncertainty Studies

The 2756 Hz curve has one of the 18 miscalibrated runs removed; only
removed for this one waveform.

FS: Other sections (V1H1L1, etc.) have not had extra MDC runs.

FS: Used different draws for each frequency of the SGs. This is why things went wrong for only one SG.

Not including antenna pattern long wavelength approximation correction
or error in converting h(f) to h(t); expect both of these to be negligible
(were in analytic treatment of uncertainties in LFS).
Also not including phase jitters in these injections, as smaller effect
than amplitude shifts.

FS: Also did single Gaussian simulation with independent draws from
Gaussian distribution for each injection (PJS: the correct way).
Mean from 18 miscalibrated sets very similar to mean from this run:
"fully consistent".

PJS: At LVS F2F, think we decided to just show mean curve for ULs, with
no extra 1-sigma allowance. May report error bars for sample sigmoid
curves.

FS: Important to note that "typical" or "mean" curve shows a little bit
better performance than the 11% analytically (quadrature-sum) adjusted
curves.

FS: Propose not doing extra sims for the other network combinations; small livetime (about 20%) so the effect of not including them
will be small.

PJS: H1H2 plot goes wonky above 4 kHz.
FS: Don't know what's happening.
FS: This plot ("Gauss Dist") is one with independent draws for each
injection. Must be that some injections are incompatible in H1H2
due to miscalibration.
SK: Looks like lose maybe 5% of loud injections due to these calibration
errors. Rejected as glitches due to inconsistency.
FS: Monte Carlo estimates conservative in that they include implausibly large relative miscalibrations of H1-H2.

FS: 2 main problems with thsi study:

RMS calibration uncertainty in HF regime very large.

Using coherent technique, which can be very sensitive to
miscalibrations in some situations (e.g., relative amplitude
miscalibration in H1H2). Can only be properly handled using
miscalibrated injections.